Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

Lightdemon said:

So can there be multiple universes?

Click to expand...

Of course. But there cannot be multiple realities.

Goobieman said:

OK...
As -anything- is possible, there's no necessary relationship between logical and possible.

If you want to define omnipotent as the ability to do anything that is possible, then, as anything is possible, your 'limit' to omnipotence is one of mere rhetoric.

Click to expand...

Anything is only logically possible when the omnipotent being actually exists in reality. If there is no such entity, "anything" would not be logically possible. Logic is dependent on what is real. So the existence of such a being that can do anything automatically means anything is logically possible.

It all depends entirely on the actual existence of said being.

Tucker Case said:

Anything is only logically possible when the omnipotent being actually exists in reality.

Click to expand...

Actually, no. Anything is possibe, period.
As noted before, 'locigally possible' is an artifical limit.

Omnipotence measn having the power to do the impossible - things like defy the laws of physics and logic.

Goobieman said:

Actually, no. Anything is possibe, period.
As noted before, 'locigally possible' is an artifical limit.

Click to expand...

Wrong. "Logically possible" is not a limit of any sort.

Omnipotence measn having the power to do the impossible - things like defy the laws of physics and logic.

Click to expand...

The part in bold are just plain false. If it is impossible, that literally means "not possible". The only way something can be done is if it is possible to be done. Something is only impossible if it is not possible under any circumstances.

You have simply written gibberish and called it "correct". Calling it such does not make it such.

Tucker Case said:

Wrong. "Logically possible" is not a limit of any sort.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. It excludes the things that are not logocally possible.
As anythng is possible, 'logically possible' is an arbitrary subset of what is possible.

The part in bold are just plain false. If it is impossible, that literally means "not possible".

Click to expand...

Is it possible to defy/manipulate the laws of physics? Logic?
Why not?

Well I have a question.

If in fact logic plays a key role on anything possible then how come the Big Bang therory is considered possible?

After all last I checked to have an explosion one needs energy and matter,

To start with nothing but maybe some energy and have an explosion and create the universe and people evolving according to natural law is in fact illogical.

You can not have an explosion without energy +matter.

presluc said:

Well I have a question.
If in fact logic plays a key role on anything possible then how come the Big Bang therory is considered possible?
You can not have an explosion without energy +matter.

Click to expand...

Most Big Bang theories posit that all of the matter and all of the energy currently found in the universe had condensed/was compressed into a single point.

Thus, mass + energy.

Tucker Case said:

Of course. But there cannot be multiple realities.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you mean. But what I meant earlier was the possibility of differences in properties of logic. We form our sense of logic based on the reality in which we live, so it follows that the properties of logic may not be the same in a different universe. Or it may be the same, but the ultimate answer is that we cannot know. Therefore the possibility is always there.

If God is omnipresent, and therefore exist in all universes at the same time, God may be able to do things that are impossible pertaining to this universe, but it could be possible in other universes. Which leads God being able to do the impossible (as defined in our universe).

presluc said:

If in fact logic plays a key role on anything possible then how come the Big Bang therory is considered possible?


You can not have an explosion without energy +matter.

Click to expand...

Goobieman said:

Most Big Bang theories posit that all of the matter and all of the energy currently found in the universe had condensed/was compressed into a single point.

Click to expand...

Not only that, matter and energy cannot be separated. Energy is really the exchange in electrons, which themselves are made of matter. The two terms are the same things, it's just that energy is describing an event that the object goes through. Matter is simply the "object."

presluc said:

Ok you want basis you got basis, but it's so easy.

1 Humans kill each other for just about any reason you could name.
Is this logical?

Click to expand...

1) You are using the term "logical" colloquially rather than in terms of referring to the system of formal logic.
2) Killing another can be justified. It depends on the circumstances.
3) How is this at all relevant to your previous claims?

2. In 1945 it was concidered logical to have a segregated army, in 1955 it was concidered logical to have segregated schools.
Today these are not logical that is unless you are a bigot or a raicist.
POINT MADE LOGIC CHANGES.

Click to expand...

1) Logic, as in what is deemed morally permissable or impermissable or "common sense" changes. What is logical, as in what things conform or violate the system of formal logic has not changed.
You need to understand the difference between logic as a system of reasoning with well defined rules, and logic as used colloquially to mean "common sense" or moral"

Tucker Case said:

The part in bold are just plain false. If it is impossible, that literally means "not possible". The only way something can be done is if it is possible to be done. Something is only impossible if it is not possible under any circumstances.

You have simply written gibberish and called it "correct". Calling it such does not make it such.

Click to expand...

[/quote]
You are correct, technically. What Goobie should have said is:
An omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible. That is, his actions are impossible with respect to logic but not impossible within reality.


PS- I haven't forgotten about your posts. Its just that I I am posting by phone at work so only short replies can be made until I find time at home to reply more thoroughly to the other posts.

Goobieman said:

Sure it is. It excludes the things that are not logocally possible.
As anythng is possible, 'logically possible' is an arbitrary subset of what is possible.

Click to expand...

Anything that is possible must therefore be logically possible. It's the way logic works. Most people simply do not understand what logic actually is, so they misuse the term.

Is it possible to defy/manipulate the laws of physics? Logic?
Why not?

Click to expand...

With physics, it's entriely possible that the "laws" as we call them are not universally true across all of reality in all situations. So "defying" them is potentially a matter of the right situation.

The "laws" of logic can't really be "defied" by an occurrence. What is logical will be logical, what is illogical will be illogical. The only thing that could happen in a situation that would be construed as a "defiance" of logic would be thee realization that what was once thought to be logical (as in sound) was actually illogical (as in not sound).

Logic is dictated by reality, logic does not act upon reality in any way. Logic is simply a way to structure an argument. Such an argument must be both valid and true in order to be classified as "logical". If something occurs that "defies" what was thought to be "logical", it automatically means that what was thought to be logical was actually illogical.

Now, someone can choose to present an argument that defies the laws of logic. For example:

Premise 1: An omnipotent being has unlimited power.
Premise 2: Something with unlimited power can do anything
Conclusion: Therefore, an Omnipotent being can do the impossible.

This is a pure defiance of logic because it posits that, in this situation, it would be possible to do that which is not possible. The very fact that it would be possible means it cannot be "not possible".

That is a defiance of logic. What does that illogical argument mean? It only really means that the person who presents such an argument has presented an illogical argument. Nothing more, nothing less. Reality is unaltered by this illogical argument. Such a person can continue to try and pretend such an argument makes sense if they so choose and the world will still not be affected by the illogical nature of the argument.

The conclusion can never be true because it contradicts itself. It is impossible for something to be both possible and impossible at the same time. This is because of the nature of the words "possible" and "impossible". Under no circumstances can something be possible and impossible. This is not because of anything more than the definitions of the words. One destroys the other.

But even more to the point, impossible and possible are adjectives that describe something. You cannot use an adjective incorrectly (in the case of the conclusion of the flawed argument above, as a noun). "Impossile" is not a thing. It is not part of "anything". Incorrectly adding an article to such a word and trying to use it as a noun doesn't change the fact that the word is an adjective being used incorrectly.

Just as illogical was used incorrectly in these debates, so is impossible.

These words do nothing more than describe the state of something. If something is impossible, that means it is something that can't be done. You cannot do something that is unable to be done because that turns that something (changes the state of that something) into something that can be done.

So this whole debate is pure nonsense and it is based entirely on people using adjectives as nouns.

That's just silly.

You are correct, technically. What Goobie should have said is:
An omnipotent being can do what is logically impossible. That is, his actions are impossible with respect to logic but not impossible within reality.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't fix it at all.

If it is not impossible in reality, then it is not logically impossible.

Tucker Case said:

That doesn't fix it at all.

If it is not impossible in reality, then it is not logically impossible.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that logic is absolutely infallible with regards to describing reality. I don't believe there is any way such absolute certainty can be known. I'll comment more on this later.

Lightdemon said:

Oh, I see what you mean. But what I meant earlier was the possibility of differences in properties of logic. We form our sense of logic based on the reality in which we live, so it follows that the properties of logic may not be the same in a different universe. Or it may be the same, but the ultimate answer is that we cannot know. Therefore the possibility is always there.

If God is omnipresent, and therefore exist in all universes at the same time, God may be able to do things that are impossible pertaining to this universe, but it could be possible in other universes. Which leads God being able to do the impossible (as defined in our universe).

Click to expand...

It's all based on the way logic works. It can only be truly logical if the premises are true in reality.

It doesn't matter if in our part of reality such a thing is considered impossible. If the premise used is false in any part of reality, it is false in all parts of reality.

For example:

If I make an argument using the following premise:

Premise 1: The sky is blue.

This statement is true on Earth, but false elsewhere, such as mars.

So if I were to use that premise in a logical argument such as:

Premise 1: The sky is blue.
Premise 2: Mars has a sky
Conclusion: Mars' sky is blue

I have not created a logically sound argument. This is because my initial premise was false. The real premise is:

The Earth's sky usually appears blue.

This premise is true. It doesn't make the mistake of attributing a quality to the sky that is false (the Earth's sky is not blue, it simply scatters blue light giving the appearance of blueness in daylight).

The incomplete premise means that even if I use the argument in a logical framework relative to Earth, I am actually using a false premise and have thus created an unsound argument.

It would not matter if there are other realities that existed, the only way something is logically impossible is if it is impossible across all of reality in every circumstance.

To formulate a legitimately sound logical argument about possibility, all variables must be accounted for. The specific situations where something is logically impossible must be stated within the premises otherwise the argument is unsound and the deduction that something is logically impossible is invalidated.

Not only does an incomplete premise negate soundness, it usually negates validity as well, thus making the argument entirely illogical.

scourge99 said:

You are assuming that logic is absolutely infallible with regards to describing reality. I don't believe there is any way such absolute certainty can be known. I'll comment more on this later.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming no more than a true premise is true. Nothing more, nothing less. Incomplete premises mean that the argument is unsound and invalid.

Tucker Case said:

Anything that is possible must therefore be logically possible. It's the way logic works. Most people simply do not understand what logic actually is, so they misuse the term.

Click to expand...

But, I DO understand the term.

The problem here is that you are trying to dictate a limit to the limitless.

You are arguing that someone with limitless power cannot defly logic.
You are arguing that someone with limitless power cannot create a contradiction that is true.

If the power is limitless, then he can.

Tucker Case said:

The incomplete premise means that even if I use the argument in a logical framework relative to Earth, I am actually using a false premise and have thus created an unsound argument.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the problem is that we don't know what is possible in the other universes. You can only know what color sky Mars has if you were able to see from Mars. You can only know what the totality of reality is only if you can see from all the possible universes.

In saying that God cannot do the impossible, you may be giving a false premise. You have no idea what is possible or impossible in another universe, whether god can create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift, or create 4-sided triangles, if God can defy logic itself, etc. If you do not know what is impossible, how can you say God cannot do it? It's the same as saying as you don't know what God cannot do.

The ultimate answer is you cannot know. You only have a choice, not the correct choice, but only a choice. You can only choose to believe whether God can defy logic or not. You're unable to determine if it is correct or not.

Goobieman said:

Most Big Bang theories posit that all of the matter and all of the energy currently found in the universe had condensed/was compressed into a single point.

Thus, mass + energy.

Click to expand...

But before that there was nothing this mass had to come from somewhere as did the energy,

You are forgetting two things Alpha and Omega.

Begining and end unless natural law has been changed?

Goobieman said:

But, I DO understand the term.

The problem here is that you are trying to dictate a limit to the limitless.

You are arguing that someone with limitless power cannot defly logic.
You are arguing that someone with limitless power cannot create a contradiction that is true.

If the power is limitless, then he can.

Click to expand...

Your argument is based entirely on using adjectives as nouns. The contradiction exists because you used a word incorrectly. Not because of anything else. It is impossible real nouns to create a contradiction. You can't "create" an "impossible", because, well... it's not a thing. If it was made into a thing, it ceases to have the same meaning. Thus it would be equivocation, and the argument fails because of that fallacy.


Also, the part in bold proves you can't possibly understand the term and use it in that fashion.

Logic is not something that can be "defied". It's the study of arguments. The "laws" of logic only act upon logical arguments. If someone does something that "defies logic", then all they have done is prove a logical argument wrong.

Lightdemon said:

Not only that, matter and energy cannot be separated. Energy is really the exchange in electrons, which themselves are made of matter. The two terms are the same things, it's just that energy is describing an event that the object goes through. Matter is simply the "object."

Click to expand...

If energy was that easily harnessed we would already have alternitive fuel.

Lightdemon said:

Yes, but the problem is that we don't know what is possible in the other universes.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Thus, we cannot make a logically valid argument that negates the possibility for something without confining those premises to include only that which we do know. i.e. our portion of reality.

We do not need to know what is possible elsewhere in order to present premises confine what we do know to the places we do know.

Any logical argument that presents something as being impossible across all of reality is necessarily illogical.

Tucker Case said:

I'm assuming no more than a true premise is true. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

which is exactly the problem. How do you know its true?

Prove that logic is absolutly true since you claim it is. You can't without using logic which is to assume the thing that you wish to prove; a fallacy.

Incomplete premises mean that the argument is unsound and invalid.

Click to expand...

My contention is not with the the rules of logic. It is with the epistemelogical question of whether logic is true/valid.

I believe it is but I cannot prove it is. Thus it is not absolutely true. Logic may not be true in some other universe.

Tucker Case said:

Exactly.

Thus, we cannot make a logically valid argument that negates the possibility for something without confining those premises to include only that which we do know. i.e. our portion of reality.

We do not need to know what is possible elsewhere in order to present premises confine what we do know to the places we do know.

Any logical argument that presents something as being impossible across all of reality is necessarily illogical.

Click to expand...

Then when we say God cannot do the impossible, it is an illogical argument isn't it?

presluc said:

If energy was that easily harnessed we would already have alternitive fuel.

Click to expand...

Where did I say it can easily be harnessed?

Energy is actually an event, not a thing. Matter is a thing. Energy is the movement of matter.

scourge99 said:

which is exactly the problem. How do you know its true?

Click to expand...

I don't need to know if it is true for it to actually be true. I can always tell when it can never be considered true, though.

I don't define what a logically sound argument is, the trueness of the premises and the validity of the logic does. My understanding of the truth will not alter the soundness of the logic because the truth of the premises is independent of my understanding.

An argument that is logically sound is dependent on the whole of reality, not just our understanding of reality. If our understanding is flawed, the logical argument is unaffected. Only our perceptions of that argument gets effected.